I like that name! I don't watch her anymore, haven't for years, but I come here for the gossipbricolage wrote:If we're after a new thread name I vote for "The Granny Edit" that someone suggested a few pages back...bitchesbelike wrote:Wtf is happening in this thread though
I think it's time for a new one anyway if anyone wants to do the honours
Totally agree. Some people might daydream about it, or even get a little jealous about their lifestyle but how many would actually take the job?fauxfox wrote:In general, the term "influencer" could easily be replaced with "salesperson" these days; there's nothing wrong with that, but that's the truth. To the person who said that most of us only wish that we could be Youtubers, or that "if it was easy, everyone would do it" - what's so appealing about losing your personal privacy, opening yourself up to stalkers and other creepy weirdos, to talk about some lipstick you like (or that someone paid you to like)? Or to talk about your preferred tampon brand in videos that will be on the internet forever? Some people will always be drawn to easy money, long-term consequences be damned - but some of us aren't. To each their own.
Indeed, it seems to be quite hard to maintain popularity and growth on youtube after around 5 years. Anyone remember Panacea81 or dollybowbow's wired ribbon hair accesories for example?DollyMixture wrote:
Totally agree. Some people might daydream about it, or even get a little jealous about their lifestyle but how many would actually take the job?
The lack of job security alone id enough to put me off, even with the big relatively easy money they're making. Frankly, most of these people are only a newer, trendier platform or a prettier, bubblier YT personality getting a come up away from being totally eclipsed and falling out of fashion. Remember all those Facebook famous/Myspace famous people with clothing lines? It is hardly a job for life. Just look at Lily Melrose, she used to be huge news in the blogging world but her YT channel hasn't even reached 300K subs after all the years she's been doing it. I don't think it looks like a very fulfilling job either, there's not much room for personal growth or learning new things unless you actively try to and lots don't, so many of them seem absolutely miserable. Anna doesn't seem miserable, but she does seem bored and to be largely running out of ideas.
Oprah was the original Influencer and everyone loves her and she evolved to do other things just like many Infkuencers do now. You all also forget that many Influencers/Bloggers create content for YEARS without any compensation most whilst employed full-time. It is a passion project and when it can be monetized why shouldn't it be. It is a form of Marketing & PR, same for magazines. Would you rather someone be sponsored or be forced to look at pop up ads and banner ads and all of the other ads media profits from?! Before Influencers this Marketing budget was going to models and celebrities, both of which are completely unrelateable.fauxfox wrote:In general, the term "influencer" could easily be replaced with "salesperson" these days; there's nothing wrong with that, but that's the truth. To the person who said that most of us only wish that we could be Youtubers, or that "if it was easy, everyone would do it" - what's so appealing about losing your personal privacy, opening yourself up to stalkers and other creepy weirdos, to talk about some lipstick you like (or that someone paid you to like)? Or to talk about your preferred tampon brand in videos that will be on the internet forever? Some people will always be drawn to easy money, long-term consequences be damned - but some of us aren't. To each their own.
Yes, but once the advertising industry had seen the potential on YouTube to sell even more products in a "The Joneses" way; then most of these YT ers who started it out of passion and made it their job lost their way and became waking and talking ads. Consumed by online fame and easy money. At least models and actors are still doing their jobs while doing ads in the side, unlike a lot of YouTubers who made advertising and lying their jobs.Gurubydaygossiperby wrote:Oprah was the original Influencer and everyone loves her and she evolved to do other things just like many Infkuencers do now. You all also forget that many Influencers/Bloggers create content for YEARS without any compensation most whilst employed full-time. It is a passion project and when it can be monetized why shouldn't it be. It is a form of Marketing & PR, same for magazines. Would you rather someone be sponsored or be forced to look at pop up ads and banner ads and all of the other ads media profits from?! Before Influencers this Marketing budget was going to models and celebrities, both of which are completely unrelateable.fauxfox wrote:In general, the term "influencer" could easily be replaced with "salesperson" these days; there's nothing wrong with that, but that's the truth. To the person who said that most of us only wish that we could be Youtubers, or that "if it was easy, everyone would do it" - what's so appealing about losing your personal privacy, opening yourself up to stalkers and other creepy weirdos, to talk about some lipstick you like (or that someone paid you to like)? Or to talk about your preferred tampon brand in videos that will be on the internet forever? Some people will always be drawn to easy money, long-term consequences be damned - but some of us aren't. To each their own.
Oprah was in fact a reporter who transitioned into a talk shows whose fame and social influence sometimes allowed her to push products to her viewers. But her role in the media was wide-ranging and I would hardly call her the 'original influencer' who happened to go on to other things, lol.Gurubydaygossiperby wrote:Oprah was the original Influencer and everyone loves her and she evolved to do other things just like many Infkuencers do now. You all also forget that many Influencers/Bloggers create content for YEARS without any compensation most whilst employed full-time. It is a passion project and when it can be monetized why shouldn't it be. It is a form of Marketing & PR, same for magazines. Would you rather someone be sponsored or be forced to look at pop up ads and banner ads and all of the other ads media profits from?! Before Influencers this Marketing budget was going to models and celebrities, both of which are completely unrelateable.fauxfox wrote:In general, the term "influencer" could easily be replaced with "salesperson" these days; there's nothing wrong with that, but that's the truth. To the person who said that most of us only wish that we could be Youtubers, or that "if it was easy, everyone would do it" - what's so appealing about losing your personal privacy, opening yourself up to stalkers and other creepy weirdos, to talk about some lipstick you like (or that someone paid you to like)? Or to talk about your preferred tampon brand in videos that will be on the internet forever? Some people will always be drawn to easy money, long-term consequences be damned - but some of us aren't. To each their own.
I think they did hire a photographer. In her "10 things I learnt from planning a wedding" blog post, she mentioned in a caption below the confetti photo "apologies the lack of photos, we won’t get the official ones for yonks!". They just didn't hire a videographer, which I can understand. The cost is outrageous and she felt pressured to do so to have a "fancy" video to feed us.Ava2014 wrote:Did she have only ten pizzas for 29 people? I think thats a bit cheap. I love small weddings but give those few people some food.
I would feel so offended if I wasnt invited by family that you love. She didnt invite her aunts and uncles. I dont get it, she also didnt have a wedding photographer even though she wanted one. How can someone who buys a chanel, YSL, chloe and lots of other bags be cheap on her wedding day.
Why would they regret it? Surely if they enjoyed their day, I doubt they'll have regrets about it further down the line. If anything, some extended family members might be a bit bitter about not being invited but that's about it.Ombre_so_over wrote:Something they might regret later on in life.
Why would they regret it? I'm sure they put plenty of thought into everything and made the conscious decision to have a small, down-to-earth wedding. They've been together for a very long time and if they didn't feel the need to go all out on the food (and they did go to a restaurant after the ceremony) and everything, who cares. The guests all seemed to know one another and have fun so good for them.Ombre_so_over wrote:I'm all for a low key wedding but this seemed kinda, just, sad. The miserable looking cake, and flat party. Long as they enjoyed it though, but it was obvious they were being cheap about the whole thing. Something they might regret later on in life.
I can understand the aunts and uncles thing if you have a huge amount but to hear Anna saying that they had everyone they wanted at it must be a bit of a slap in the face for the people who didnt get an invite especially the aunt who Anna & Mark often visit and Anna tells us what a brilliant cook she is! Also her best friend who had the baby - they would have known she was pregnant when they arranged their date! I know each to their own at the end of the day and I wouldn't be into a huge wedding just to please the relatives either!